Heard Mr. Shivnandan Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Pramod Manbansh, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. With the consent of the parties the matter has been taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.

3. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed questioning the order dated 5.6.2012 passed by learned Sub Judge IV, Begusarai in Misc. Case No. 19 of 2011 arising from Title Execution Case No. 3 of 1995 whereby the learned Court below has been pleased to dismiss the Misc. case filed on behalf of the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure at the stage of admission.

4. For appreciating the matter in issue it would be necessary to exposit the brief facts of the matter which are germane to the issue under consideration.

5. The Execution Case No.3 of 1995 finds its origin to a judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.165 of 1986 filed by the father of the respondent Nos. 1,2 and 4 and husband of respondent No.3 namely, Late Nawal Kishore Sharma. The suit had been filed for specific performance to enforce an agreement for sale dated 21.5.1986 stated to have been executed by one Hari Lal Sah the father of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and Shakunti Devi wife of Ram Chandra Sah father of respondent Nos. 8 and 9 herein, in favour of late Nawal Kishore Sharma in relation to land bearing Khata No.66 Khesra No.38 Thana No. 383 Tauzi No. 5152 Mauza Mirganj District Begusarai measuring about 2 kathas. The title suit was decreed ex parte as against the defendants by judgment and decree dated 5.9.1988 and 26.11.1988 respectively.

6. Following the judgment and decree aforesaid passed in the title suit, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code was filed by Shakunti Devi giving rise to Misc. Case No.4 of 1989 and which was dismissed by judgment and order dated 18.5.1992. A Misc. Appeal bearing No. 30 of 1992 preferred by the judgment debtors was also dismissed on 5.7.1994 and against which a civil revision was filed bearing C.R. No. 1343 of 1994 before this Court which also was dismissed on 3.9.1996. A sale deed was executed in the light of the agreement to sale through the process of the Court on 28.6.1996, copy whereof is placed at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of the respondent 1st set-decree holders. Even the Special Leave Petition filed before the Supreme Court bearing SLP No. 21533 of 1997 by the judgment debtors was dismissed on 5.12.1997.

7. In between, the daughters of Shakunti Devi executed two sale deeds on 2.7.1996 in favour of the petitioner for an area of 6 dhurs within the suit property which was subject matter of Title Suit No. 165 of 1986. The petitioner herein on the strength of the sale deeds dated 2.7.1996, filed an application in the execution proceedings under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure and which has been rejected by the learned Court below on grounds that it was a deliberate attempt by the judgment debtors to deny the fruits of decree to the decree holders even after having lost their contest upto the Supreme Court. Thus the present application.

8. Mr. Shivnandan Roy, learned Senior counsel submits that notwithstanding the judgment and decree passed in the title suit preferred by the father of the decree holders as against the mother and uncle of the vendors of the petitioner and the execution of the sale deed through the process of the Court on 28.6.1996, it would not have any binding effect on the right, title and interest of the vendor of the petitioner in the ancestral property. It is submitted that the father of the vendor of the petitioner namely Ram Chandra Sah deceased 32 years back and thus the daughters i.e the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 along with their mother Shakunti Devi derived ownership in the property of Ram Chandra Sah. It is contended that as the daughters i.e. respondent Nos. 8 and 9 along with their mother Shakunti Devi were co-owners of the property hence Shakunti De